Jigsaw and the tools you already use
Two questions
Twenty years ago, organizations began adopting a standard set of tools for managing sexual abuse risk: policies, training, background checks, codes of conduct, and accreditation. They adopted them to protect the people in their care, and their commitment has only deepened since.
The tools answer one question well: do we have the right things in place? However, they were never built to answer the follow-up question: is our protection working? A policy can exist and go unfollowed. Training can be completed and forgotten. A background check can be clean and beside the point. An accreditation can be current today and disconnected from what happens next Tuesday.
Every organization in the claims files had these tools. What none of them had was a way to see that their protection had stopped working while there was still time to act.
How every other safety field answered the question
Medicine, manufacturing, and cybersecurity each went through the same realization. They started where sexual abuse safety is now, with checklists and periodic audits, and found that the harm that hurts people lives in moments of judgment under uncertainty that no procedure reaches. So they built systems that do something different:
Support judgment where uncertainty is greatest, rather than only enforcing rules for situations that are already clear.
Monitor continuously, as part of how the organization operates, rather than at renewal or accreditation time.
Sustain attention deliberately, with a rhythm that catches drift before it becomes a gap.
Surface and track concerns, including the disquiet and the unease, not only the suspicion.
Measure the whole system, so leadership can see what needs attention while there’s still time to act.
There is a reason the old tools couldn’t do this, and it has nothing to do with effort. The behaviors that keep people safe day-to-day — noticing, asking, saying so early — are discretionary. No requirement can command them; they run on motivation. Controls handed down to be performed because someone else said so drain exactly that motivation, and over time turn people who care into people who comply. A system made only of requirements can’t reach the part of protection that matters most.
The shape of the problem
Consider the architecture most organizations have. At the front end, compliance: implementing the protection controls that are required to operate. At the back end, crisis response, counseling, lawyers, and insurance: tools often implemented reactively to address harm once it has surfaced. Both matter, but the gap between them matters far more: nothing tells anyone whether protection is working before harm, while something can still be done.
That gap is where Jigsaw sits: the working core. And once the core exists, both ends change. The compliance basics become components in a living system, owned and kept current. Incident response becomes carefully planned, supported by pre-vetted experts, and insurance can reflect how well it’s all put together.
What Jigsaw does differently
Your team names the moments in its own week where uncertainty is greatest, builds controls for them, and brings them into a system that monitors, reviews, and measures continuously. The Governance Maturity Rating (GMR), a letter grade from A+ to NR, reads the system and tells you whether it’s working. Not whether steps were taken. Whether the system is alive.
Three things change.
Protection improves. Controls are checked and reviewed, not only established. Attention holds because the system keeps the rhythm, and drift is caught while it’s still drift.
Concerns surface sooner. Observations, questions, and unease have a route from the moment they’re raised to the moment they’re resolved. The next step is never a guess.
A contemporaneous record. When a board, a parent, a regulator, or a plaintiff’s attorney asks what you did, the evidence was created by the system doing its job, dated, rather than assembled after the event. The tools show intent. A working system shows action.
Side by side
| The toolkit | Jigsaw | |
|---|---|---|
| Built to answer | “Do we have the right things in place?” | “Is our protection working?” |
| What it measures | Whether steps were taken | Whether the system is working |
| How often | Periodically: audits, renewals, accreditation cycles | Continuously |
| Judgment support | Assumes the policy is enough | Wherever there’s uncertainty |
| Drift | Assumes conditions are stable between reviews | Assumes change |
| Concerns | Ad hoc, or once there’s an incident | Tracked from the moment raised |
| Attention | Fades between compliance events | Kept by rhythm, and measured |
| Evidence | Policy documents, training records, certificates | A contemporaneous, dated record |
| Rating | Pass or fail | Continuous measurement, traceable to the work |
| What it shows | Intent | Action |
Where insurance fits
Because Jigsaw’s cover is connected to the system, coverage can reflect how well the risk is managed, measured rather than self-reported. Coverage is arranged by Tuckerman Underwriting, a coverholder at Lloyd’s, and underwritten by certain underwriters at Lloyd’s (A+ A.M. Best). The system stands on its own; the cover is the consequence of what it shows.
Questions people ask
Does Jigsaw replace our existing policies and training? No. They become elements within a system that monitors, reviews, and measures whether they’re working. Some may be adapted once your team has looked at them in the light of its own risk zones. None are thrown away.
How much work does Jigsaw add? The work changes more than it grows. Jigsaw runs in meetings you already hold, and the system keeps the schedule, so nothing depends on anyone remembering. You spend the time talking about your programs and deciding what to do.
How is the GMR different from an accreditation? An accreditation assesses a moment. Between assessments nothing is measured. The GMR reads the system continuously, and every grade is traceable to the work that produced it.
How long does it take? You can have a system producing value within days and first GMR evidence within weeks. A mature system takes one to two years, depending on your organization and how long your review cycles run.
Does Jigsaw include SML insurance? The Jigsaw Program integrates sexual misconduct liability cover, as above. The system is also available on its own.
What does it cost? It depends on your organization’s size and structure. Ask us.
The best way to know if Jigsaw fits your organization is through a conversation.
No pitch, just a straight look at what reliable protection would involve for an organization like yours.
Where does your protection stand? Take the Protection Baseline — twelve questions, ten minutes, private.